[quote][QUOTE=peacegirl;1092452]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We still do not know how efferent sight actually works. How does the information end up in the brain? How does it actually work, when you get right down to it?
|
This one remains unanswered.
Quote:
Quote:
|
We still do not know why light needs to be refracted in order for us to see it properly in the case of glasses.
|
I already answered that. The brain is still using light to see, and if that light not striking the eyeball correctly, the outside world will be blurred.
|
Why? How does that work? The light carries no information, so why would it have to hit the "eyeball correctly?"
That is no answer at all.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We still do not know how a camera, which works afferently and is just a light-detector (we built them that way) can show the same image as the eyes over large distances.
|
Because they work the same way as the eye does Vivisectus. If the object is in the camera's field of view, the image will show up. If the object is not within the camera's field of view, the object will not show up because the light from the object cannot be resolved.
|
It cannot work the same way - you say the eye works "efferently" while a camera just detects light.
The rest is meaningless: basically you are saying that if an object is roughly in front, it shows up, but not if it is not roughly in front... trivial. It explains nothing at all.
Finally, if it is "light from the object" that needs to be resolved, then there is a delay as the camera would have to wait for the light to arrive. We would not be able to photograph a new supernova, but we would be able to see it.
This is once again a non-answer. I wonder - do you even notice, or do you just select words that sound nice and sort of string them together?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
There are still "afferent nerve endings" in the eye, and they are still the same as the ones on the ear or the nose.
|
That's not quite right. The structure of the eye is different than the structure of the ear and nose. It is a much more complicated organ.
|
Not really. In fact there are
only afferent nerves in the retina. Ask TLR.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We still have nu clue how televisions work: they just emit light, not images.
|
That's right, they emit light, and in HD we see a sharper image due to a higher resolution of pixels. But the television screen that is emitting this light is within our visual range.
|
...and emits only light. If light did not contain information and is merely a requirement for sight, a TV should not work. There is no object to look at in the case of a TV.
Again you have no answer.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We still do not know why we should assume conscience works the way the book claims it does. Because of this, the claim that the book is a logical, undeniable progression is proven to be false.
|
No it does not mean that. It means you haven't taken the actual time necessary to study this work for a clear understanding. Don't pass the buck onto me when you haven't done your part Vivisectus, and you know it.
|
Ah, so then you
do know, as the person who has studied this book the most? Then why are you unable to explain it? Again, evasion and no answer.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But hey! If you don't agree with the book, that is because you are biased, a meany, or just not bright enough to get it. Absolutely not because it fails to make sense, and fails to support it's rather grandiose claims.
|
I never said people weren't bright enough. In fact, I even said to Spacemonkey that he has the intellectual capacity. The same goes for you and everyone else in here.
|
And yet you consistently blame any disagreement on a lack of understanding, bias or just malice.
Congratulations! You have not actually answered any of it because you are unable to. And you do not even seem to realize it.